Hi 118, Far be it from me to argue for one true way of using any term, but your too-broad definition makes the term useless for drawing the sort of distinctions I want to make with it. We could say that every time one uses a sentence she is an SOMer since that sentence probably has a subject as well direct and/or indirect objects, but doing so would not help us untangle any philosophical issues--the purpose for which Pirsig invented the term
Best, Steve On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:21 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Steve, > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Steven Peterson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Steve: >> I think SOM is more than thinking that "reality is composed of objects >> that exist independently of the subjective observer." I think it >> depends on how that common sense notion is used for doing philosophy >> if at all. If all one means in saying that is that most things are >> unaffected by our beliefs about them, then I don't see anything >> metaphysical in there let alone a metaphysical problem. We have good >> reason to think that when our beliefs about something change, it isn't >> the "something" that changes (and no good reason to doubt that) in >> lots of ordinary situations. Where I think SOM comes in is when we use >> the concepts of subjects and objects as the _basis_ for a systematic >> approach to thinkngn--for metaphysics. > > [Mark] > In my opinion, SOM is a tool used for a variety of purposes, and the > use of the term metaphysics is very loose. > > In order to converse and share ideas, we must objectify what we want > to share so that we can deliver it. Thus words and concepts are > objectified forms of awareness. If I want to provide on with the > awareness of my frustration (for example), I must first objectify that > awareness into a word or concept. This object is then delivered from > me (the subject) to another (another subject). Once this is received, > the objectified form is dismissed and the listener is left with > awareness. There is nothing magical or reality nullifying going on > with SOM, it is just conversation. When I objectify my hard work in > the form of money, I can then use a representation of this work to > obtain things from another. Money is not an end goal just like words > and objects are not an end goal. > > Another use for SOM is to place oneself in an environment. If the > preservation of the body is important, it must place itself in > relation to what it creates as "other things". Therefore, if thunder > clouds are on their way, we objectify that awareness in a way that is > useful and we go inside. Again, there is nothing sinister about this > form of SOM. > > A third use for SOM would be for memory. It is much easier to > catalogue something by giving it boundaries rather than to deal with > it in terms of the vast interconnectedness of it. If I feel > frustrated, I catalogue it in terms of the events which surround this > frustration. My memory thus encourages me to avoid these situations. > This is, of course a vast simplification of the presence of my > frustration (for example, again) since I am using these situations to > justify my feelings, whereas it may be more appropriate to say that my > feelings created the appearance of these situations. The exact same > situations can be seen as either positive or negative. However, if we > live in our creation of these justifications, then our awareness can > be diminished. This is perhaps a detrimental part of SOM. If we > encapsulate somebody by our memory of the words they use, rather than > the context of these words, we limit our appreciation of the dialogue. > For, dialogue should put rhetoric above dialectic (or Truth). >> >> As Pirsig said, the SOM is also a metaphysics of Quality, but it takes >> the first division of Quality to be into subjects and objects rather >> than into DQ and sq. When we _start_ with subjects and objects as our >> first cut expecting all the puzzle pieces to fall neatly into place, >> we find that they actually don't. We are left with a nest and brood of >> resolution-resistant dualisms that have plagued thinkers for thousands >> of years. Certain of these dualisms are the root of certain >> psychological problems which Bernstein describes as "Cartesian >> Anxiety." If, as pragmatism suggests, we can do well to understand >> beliefs by thinking of them as habits of action, then we recognize >> that a person has a given philosophy not only by what a person says >> but by also what a person does and what the person fears. An SOMer is >> not simply a person who is prone to say things like, "reality is >> composed of subjects and objects" but a person who lives the >> consequences of that belief in certain ways which "Cartesian Anxiety" >> helps explicate. For them, certain "philosophical problems" are >> problems. But if a person who says, "reality is composed of subjects >> and objects" and doesn't display this anxiety, then perhaps this >> person has simply made the usual practical inference (evolved the >> usual static pattern) that almost all babies eventually do labelled >> "object permanence" rather than made a claim about what is _ really_ >> going on in the metaphysical sense of "really"--the One True Way the >> the universe itself demands we describe it. > > Mark: > It would seem that there is some confusion of the subject-object > divide here. For it seems that by the analysis above, both the > subject and object are treated as objects while only one should be. > This could be at the root of such Cartesian Anxiety since it may claim > that the spirit and the body are two objective things. This is > impossible since the spirit is an act of creativity. It is always > "in-becoming". And although the use of words here (such as the > meaning of "is") may claim that the spirit "IS" something, this is not > what the sentence above is pointing to. > > In my opinion, we live this existence more from the inside out than > from the outside in. The first is the subjective, and the second is > the objective. However, this "duality" is very unbalanced in this day > and age. MoQ seeks to rebalance this trend by introducing the concept > of Quality. > > I often find it useful to describe this existence of mine as a > "window". A window is shaped by its four corners, but the view > through it is much more. Take away the framework, and the window > disappears. Take away the material and the spiritual disappears. > > Finally, I would like to bring in the word "anagology" to the forum > although I am sure it has been used before here. In philosophical > metaphysics the term "anagology" is perhaps more relevant than > "analogy". If I may, I also direct your attention to the web site for > Thomas Merton, who was an interesting thinker (religion aside), at: > > http://www.thomasmertonsociety.org.uk/ > > Cheers, > Mark >> Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
